Author: Uri Blass
Date: 17:19:57 06/21/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 21, 2004 at 19:51:39, Pierre Bourget wrote: >On June 21, 2004 at 19:36:29, Joachim Rang wrote: > >>On June 21, 2004 at 19:15:11, John Merlino wrote: >> >>>On June 21, 2004 at 19:04:18, Joachim Rang wrote: >>> >>>>On June 21, 2004 at 17:47:34, Jorge Pichard wrote: >>>> >>>>>http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1718 >>>> >>>>too weak for what? Why not quote the whole statement: >>>> >>>>Machines are too weak to reach the ground of chess and give a final answer to >>>>some unsolved questions in chess. >>>> >>>>One can only say, how true! >>>> >>>>regards Joachim >>> >>>Uh, that wasn't exactly what he said either. >>> >>>HERE is the whole quote, in the context of a portion of the full interview: >>> >>>------------------ >>>Spiegel Online: Are you a genius? >>> >>>Kramnik: I am pretty talented. >>> >>>Spiegel Online: Once again so modest. >>> >>>Kramnik: You know, sometimes I think I have understood a position, but after a >>>couple of years I realize that I have understood nothing. That is what is so >>>mysterious and fascinating about chess. You have a board with 64 squares, and it >>>is so deep that not even ten Kramniks can know which is the best move. Sometimes >>>you simply feel lost. You cannot feel the ground. >>> >>>Spiegel Online: Are you afraid of the depth? >>> >>>Kramnik: It is sometimes painful. You simply cannot reach the ground. This >>>ground or call it final truth, if it exists at all, is not of humans. >>> >>>Spiegel Online: Will a machine ever be in a position to light up the darkness? >>> >>>Kramnik: I don’t think so. Not even the strongest computers even come close to >>>the ground. >>> >>>Spiegel Online: What does the machines lack? >>> >>>Kramnik: The strongest computer, against which I played in October 2002, can >>>examine four million positions per second. You can work out how many it plays >>>through in six or seven minutes but they are too weak. >>> >>>Spiegel Online: But you still say that man are superior to the computer. >>> >>>Kramnik: Because man has intuition. He has this untouchable moment within >>>himself. We may call it understanding. >>>------------------ >>> >>>jm >> >> >>okay right, one might interprete differently. In my understanding he said, that >>computers are to weak to light up the darkness of chess understanding which one >>might describe as "solving" chess. It was not about OTB-Performance, where >>machined obviously are not weak but equal to the world class (and soon stronger >>probably). >> >>To give you an example: >> >>[D]8/8/p4Bp1/1pPb2P1/1P2kp2/P7/5K2/8 w - - 0 1 >> >>which computer can light the darkness on that position and tell you that the >>only move to draw is c6? No computer can do it today, but man can (and could) do >>it. >> >>regards Joachim > >I don't think man could solve it at the board either with today time control. > >Pierre Not relevant. Which computer can solve it if you give it 24 hours? Uri
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.